42

Jurnal Kej. Awam Jilid 10 Bil. 11997

WIND-MOMENT DESIGN FOR UNBRACED FRAMES WITH

BENDING ABOUT BOTH COLUMN AXES

by

Mahmood Md Tahir (Ph;D)

Dept. of Structures and Materials

ABSTRACT

Analysis and design of steel unbraced frames bending on both axes were
performed with emphasis on stability and deflection checks. Wind-moment
design is proposed to improve the stability and stiffness. The performance
of the frames was checked for collapse load level at Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) for 2nd order anaysis and the deflection limits at Serviceability
Limit State checked for Ist order analysis. The investigation demonstrated
that the frames should be restricted to less than four storeys.

INTRODUCTION

. Steel frames with bending about both the major and the minor axes of the
column sections are usually designed on the basis that beam-to-column
connections are either pinned or rigid. However, the actual behaviour will
usually fall somewhere between these extremes, as recognised by the
concept of semi-rigid design permitted by some design codes including
Eurocode 3[1]. The connection behaviour is then represented by a
moment-rotation (M-<I» curve, relating the moment M transmitted by the
connection to the relative rotation <II between the beam and the adjacent
column. This means that all connections, including connections connected
to column web, will possess some moment capacity and some rotational
stiffness. However, uncertainty concerning the behaviour of connections
attached to a column web make this configuration an Uncommon one for
joints designed to be moment-resistant.

For the design of unbraced sway frames at ULS, it is possible to use

advanced methods based on interaction of elastic buckling characteristics
and the reduction in stiffness due to plasticity[1 ,2]. The joints are assumed
to be rigid and full-strength. However, other less-sophisticated methods
apparently based on purely elastic behaviour are also available. One
approach, termed the "wind-moment" or "wind-connection" method[3], is
often used in the U.K. The method is known as "Type 2 Construction" in
the U.S.A[4).
 43

WIND-MOMENT DESIGN FOR UNBRACED FRAMES BENDING

ABOUT MAJOR COLUMN AXIS ·

The use of the "wind-moment" design method in conjunction with BS

5950 Part 1[2] is now well-established for major-axis framing, This
method effectively employs semi-rigid connections which are also "partial-
strength" relative to the connected beams; a range of standard joints of this
type are now available[5]. The existing rules for "wind-moment" design
have been shown to provide adequate resistance to frames with major-axis
sway. In its simplest form the "wind-moment" method[3] assumes:

(i) under gravity load, the connections act as pins Figure 1a; this means
that the. beam members are designed as simply supported with no
moments transferred to the column, other than nominal "eccentricity"
rnoments.,
(ii) under wind load, the connections behave as rigid joints, with points of
contraflexure at the mid-height of columns and mid-length of beams
Figure lb .

Members are proportional initially to resist gravity load. The internal

forces and moments due to gravity load and wind Figure 2a and Figure
2b are then combined in appropriate load cases. The design at the ultimate
limit state is completed by amending the initial section sizes and other
details for the members and connections, to withstand combined load
effects.

The advantage of the method is its simplicity. The frame is considered as

statically determinate with internal moments and forces not dependent on
the relative stiffness of the members. The need to repeat the analysis to
correspond to changed section sizes is thereby avoided. The beam sections
generally have the same size for all the floors since the mid-span moment
due to gravity load usually controls the design, thus simplifying the
construction of the building. In contrast, for fully continuous construction
with rigid joints, the beam sections tend to be different at the various floor
levelsjo] . A further advantage is that connections usually do not require
the web stiffening often associated with rigid joints ; this is because they
are designed for moments due to wind .loading only. As a result,
fabrication costs are reduced and designers have greater freedom in the
positioning and size of beams which frame into the column web.

For serviceability, sway deflections are calculated assuming connections

are rigid. Second-order analysis due to the "P_A" effect is not included in
the calculation. . It is assumed that these can be accounted for by using .
effective column lengths greater than the true lengths, for axes about which
sway can occur.
 44

The method described above has been used extensively, and design rules
consistent with BS 5950: Part I: 1990[2] have been published[3]. These
were developed in conjunction with an analytical study of typical frames
designed by the method[7]. Despite its widespread use the method cannot
be fully accepted as a generally applicable approach . . The scope of the
rules was therefore restricted to that of the study. In particular they apply
to steelwork which can be idealised as a series of unbraced plane frames
which are effectively braced against out-of-plane sway at roof level and
each floor level as shown in Figure 3. Within each plane frame the column
sections should be oriented such that loads in the plane of the frame tend to
cause bending about the major axes. This represents an unwelcome
restriction on the forms of structure to which the. "wind-moment" method
can be applied . Studies were therefore required to verify the method when
. the structure can sway about both column axes.

WIND-MOMENT DESIGN FOR UNBRACED FRAMES BENDING

ABOUT MINOR COLUMN AXIS

The "wind-moment" approach has been further extended by the present

author to the design of unbraced frames with bending about both column
axes, as described elsewhere[8]. For frames which sway about the minor
axis, the following are of particular concern:

1. the form of the minor-axis connection, which must provide reasonable

moment resistance and stiffness;
2. the stiffness and stability of the frame against minor-axis sway, which
will be influenced by the low flexural rigidity exhibited even by
Universal Columns bent in this way;
. 3. in frames supporting precast units, the minor axis beams may remain
as little more than tie members even when designed for wind
moments, with consequent absence of appropriate stiffness to ensure
frame stability at ultimate load and reasonable deflections in service.

The methodology is similar to that used previously on major-axis

framing[7,9], namely the design of a series of frames by the proposed
rules, followed by "exact" analysis[lO] to check the designs. The "exact"
analysis is described by Kavianpour as a second order elasto-plastic
approach, based on the matrix displacement method . The analysis
includes the behaviour of the connections by including an estimation of the
secant stiffness of each connection obtained from the M-<I> characteristics.
These in .tum may be obtained from tests, mathematical expressions or
analytical 'modelsl l I]. Plasticity in members is taken into account by a
plastic hinge idealization. The effect of axial force in frame stiffness is
included by using stability functions with modifications made to the slope-
deflection equations; small-deflection theory is assumed.
 45

RANGE OF APPLICATIONS

The range of the study is summarised in Table 1. The frames ranged in

height from two to eight storeys. In recognition of the unlikelihood of the
frame cons isti ng of only one longitudinal bay, the minimum number of
bays in the minor axis framing was taken as two (Figure 4a and 4b)

Each longitudinal bay was assumed to be 6m in length. The maximum

number,of longi tudinal bays was taken in this study as six. The following
configurations of minor-axis framing were therefore investigated :

• two-storey, two-bay
• four-storey, two-bay
• four-storey, four-bay
• four-storey , six-bay
• eight-sto rey; two-bay.

The limitations on 'frame dimensions confo rmed to those specified in the

existing guide(3] for "wind -moment" design. In view of possible
difficulty in ensuring adequate stabilit y and stiffness, the study assumed
5275 steel, rather than the higher grade material used in some of the earlier
studies[9].

Ta ble 1 : Ra ne e 0 r '" ~ 1Il

. d -momen t" St UdI V on mmor axis
Minimum wind Maximum wind
Number of storeys 2 to 8 2 to 8
Number of bays 2 to 6 2to 6
Bay width 6m 6m
Storey height (bottom) 6m 6m
Storey height (elsewhere) 5m 5m
Dead load on floors 3.50 kN/m' 5.00 kN/m'
Imposed load on floors 4.00 kN/m ' ,7.50 kN/m'
Dead load on roof 3.75 kN/m ' 3.75 kN/m'
Imposed load on roof l.50 kN/m' 1.50 kN/mL
Basic wind speed 37 mls 52 mls
Basic steel grade S275 S275

Two arrangements of floor grids were co nsidered: The first arrangement

consi sts of floor units assumed to span 6 m between the major-axis frames
as illust rated in Figure Sa. This results in the minor-axis beams being free
of significant gravity forces, the main loadi ng being wind-moments . The
second grid assumed composite floors spanning only 3m (Figure 5b) with
the resu lt that the minor axis beams act as primary beams in support of the
floo r; sub stantial minor-axis beam section s are then needed to resist
gravity forces and the inherent stability of the minor axis framing is
signifi cantly increased. The limitations on loading conformed to those in
the existing recommendations[3]. Frames were designed for combinations
of maximum gravit y-load with minimum wind forces, and vice-versa.

- ._._ ._- - -----

 46

LOAD COMB INAnONS

For serviceability limit states design loads were taken as unfactored .

When considering dead load plus imposed load and wind load, only 80 %
of the imposed load and wind load need to be taken into account[2].
Frames were analysed under three load combinations as folJows:-

• 1.0 Dead load plus 1.0 Imposed load plus unfactored notional force .
• 1.0 Dead load plus 0.8 Imposed load plus 0.8 wind load
• 1.0 Dead load plus 1.0 Wind load.

The deflection limits for a building exceeding one storey high as

recommended by BS 5950 are to be less than 1I300th of the height of the
storey under consideration.

For ultimate limit states, loads were be taken as factored. Frames were
analysed under three load combinations as follows:-

• 1.4 Dead load plus 1.6 Imposed load plus factored notional force
• 1.2 Dead load plus 1.2 Imposed load plus 1.2 wind load
• 1.4 Dead load plus j.4 Wind load.

DESIGN METHODOLOGY

Initiall y the structure was designed by the wind-moment method assuming

bending about the major axis of the columns . Computer software written
by Reading[7] and modified by Brown[9] was used to design the column
sections for frame bending about this axis. The modification by Brown was
to change the effective length for minor axis buckling from O.85L to I.OL,
in accordance with the published rules for wind-moment design[3]. For
minor axisdesign, the software was further modified by the present author.

, In the case of floor grids illustrated in Figure Sa, the minor axis beams are
designed to resist only those moments due to either notional horizontal
forces or wind. Small beam sections may then result. Second-order
"exact" analysesl fOl then show inadequate sway stability for the 'ULS
design loads. Two procedures are then adopted to stiffen the frame: .

(i) sections are increased to limit the sway index to 11300 under
serviceability wind forces;
(ii) further increases may be made in beam sections to provide improved
restraint to the columns.

A detailed description of the procedures is described in referencels]. For

floor grids arranged in Figure 5b the minor axis beams act as primary
beams and therefore, carry substantial gravity loads. Their des igns and
proposed form of connections are discussed in the foregoing paragraphs.

-
-----------------
 47

WIND·MOMENT DESIGN FOR BEAMS IN MINOR·AXIS

FRAMING

The beams for the floor grids illustrated in Figure Sa are considered as tie
beams which carry no gravity load except their own dead weight. This is
because the floor units span directly between' the major-axis framing and
the minor axis beams may be positioned clear of the underside of the floor.
In such circumstances the minor-axis beams resist bending moments M
only due to the notional horizontal forces or due to wind. By being clear
of the underside of the floor, the minor axis beam is laterally unrestrained.
The member should therefo re be designed as follows:

I. As the notional horizontal forces are a device to allow for initial.out-

of-plumb (and are therefore not real forces), the appropriate
maximum slenderness is that corresponding to a member carrying
only wind forces in addition to its own self weight. Hence, from
clause 4.7.3.2 of B55950 Part 1[2J, the effective slenderness ratio
should not exceed 250 ; in view of the end restraint, the slenderness
ratio is taken as 0.85Ury;
2. M cx 2: M, where M cx is the moment capacity about major axis.
=
For a compact section, M cx PyS but s:; 1.2p yZwhere for semi-
compact section , M cx = PyZ where Py is 'the design strength, Sis
the plastic modulus of the section about the relevant axis, and Z is the
corresponding elastic modulus;
3. the moments due to notional horizontal forces and wind cause double
curvature in the minor-axis beams as shown in Figure 6. The need to
check for lateral torsional buckling under this moment distribution is
discussed below.

The design of the beams for floor gridsil!ustrated in Figure 5b was made'
in accordance with the recommendations for major-axis framing[3J.

CHECK FOR MAXIMUM SLENDERNESS

Tie beams transmit wind forces and notional horizontal forces which in
tum are distributed between bays. 'In this manner the tie beams are acting
as ' horizontal struts. In accordance to BS 5950 clause 4.7.3.2, the
maximum slenderness for members resisting self weight and wind loads
only, should not exceed 250. For this study the minimum beam section for
tie beams was a 203xI33x25UB. . The resulting slenderness ratio (A) is
equal to 165 based on 0.85Ury for a 6 m span beam. The maximum
slenderness ratio calculated for section 254xl02x25UB is 238, not
exceeding the limit recommended by the design code.

'------ - -- --------- '

--
' . '

~
 48

CHECK FOR LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING

The tie beams do not carry gravity load, therefore can be considered as
laterally unrestrained. In this case, m is taken to be equal to 0.43 due to the
double curvature effect. The studies have shown that lateral torsional
bucking is not critical[8),

WIND-MOMENT DESIGN FOR COLUMNS IN MINOR AXIS

FRAMING

For floor grids shown in Figure Sa, it is likely that the worst situ-ation for
frame stability will arise with the structure fully-loaded , For "internal"
minor-axis framing (Figure 4b), with equal bay widths and loading, the
only bending moments in the columns are due to horizontal loads, and it
may therefore be expected that the column moments will be in double-
curvature bending. In the design of minor-axis framing for this study, an
equivalent uniform moment factor m y of 0.43 was adopted for the overall
buckling check conforming to clause 4.8.3.3.1 specified in BS 5950. In
- view of the earlier design recommendations for major-axis framing[3J. it
is proposed that m, be taken as unity. For calculation of the buckling
resistance moment the effective length is taken as 1.0 L. The effective
length of the column for resistance to axial load is influenced by sway
about the minor axis and should be taken as 1.5 L[3].

Patterned loading should be considered in the design although it is unlikely

to be critical in some cases. Patterned loading induces out-of-balance
moments in the columns, and therefore be checked for biaxial bending.
Patterned loading was developed by loading the beam on one side of the
column, with the factored maximum gravity load (1.4 Dead load + 1.6
Imposed load) and the other side with the factored dead load only (1.4
Dead load). For floor grids illustrated in Figure Sa, the unbalanced
moment acted about the major axis of the columns whereas wind or
notional forces contributed moment about the minor axis. A second
pattern to induce the maximum out-of-balance moments about the minor
axis was also considered for the floor grids shown in Figure 51l. Figure 7
shows the two arrangements Of loading for such grids. -

FRAME GRIDS FOR COMPOSITE FLOORS

The recommendations described by Kavianpour{ I0]-for limiting sway and

improving restraint in columns are primarily intended to avoid inadequate
sway stability that would arise with grids arrangement illustrated in Figure
Sa. However, they can also be applied to frames with grids arrangements
shown Figure Sb. All frames must possess adequate stiffness under
- serviceability loading. - The recommendations represent good practice
based on engineering judgement and may, in any case, be automatically
satisfied by beams from the grids concerned, because these members
support substantial gravity loads.

----~---

----------
 49

ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS

The dimensions and loading for the various frame arrangements studied in
the programme are listed in Table 2 to Table 5. The data presenied in
Table 2 and Table 3 takes into consideration minimum wind (pad
combined with maximum gravity load. Table 4 and Table 5 display data
for the case of maximum wind load combined with minimum gravity load,
vice-versa of Table 2 and Table 3. The wind-moment designs given in
these tables are noted as "Section Designation I". To j ustify the design
recommendations, the frames were subjected to a first-order analysis and
accounting for rigid and semi-rigid joints. A software( to] was used to
carry out this analysis. .

To ensure local column stability, checks on overall buckling and local :

capacity were made in accordance with Clause 4.8.3.3.1 and 4.8.3.2(a) of
BS 5950(2]. The moments and forces used were those given by the
analysis at the design load levels for ULS. As the results were regarded as
"e xact", equi valent uniform moment factors were calculated from the
distribution of bending moments revealed in the columns. The resulting
comparisons against unity are termed 'Stability Factors' . For the overall
buckling check, the minor axis moment of resistance was taken as the yield
moment pyZy, and not the plastic moment. For the local capacity check,
the moment capacity was taken as the less of the minor axis plastic
moment and 1.2 pyZy. For comparison purposes the designs were analysed
.ass~ming that they were rigid and semi-rigid joints frames.

The results for flames design for minimum wind in conjunction with
maximum gravity load for rigid and semi-rigid joints are summari sed in
Table 6 and Table 7. Frames subjected to maximum wind loading in
conjunction with .minimum gravity load are designed in accordance to the
proposed rules[8]. The rules improve the wind moment design, providing
adequacy in the overall stability and limiting the sway index to 1/300.
Otherwise, where NA is shown (Table 6 & Table 7), this indicat es that:

• in the case of Section Designat ion I, the design possessed inadequate

overall stabil ity;
• -in the case of deflections, the overall sway exceeded the index limit of
11300. .

CONCLUSIONS

The study on unbraced frames bending abou: both column axes showed
that it was not possible to design frames onl y bywind-moment analysis to
provid e adequate resistance. Proposed rules[8) are needed to improve the
design . Despite the assumption of relatively stiff minor-axis connections
in which the sole source of flexibility is associated with 'the beam end-
plate, a straightforward extension of the previous rules for wind moment
design[3] does not always result in frames of adequate overall stability. .

----------
- - - - --_ .-:---._--
----------:
 50

Th is is parti cul arly true of frames in which floor units span betwe en major-
axis beam s. In this case the minor-axis beams, not be ing heavily .loaded,
may be of small section size and therefore too flexible to ensure overall
fram e stabili ty. .In additi on, the neglect of second-order effects results in
the likelihood that the moment resistan ce of the joints will be reached
below the design load le vel, causing a maj or deterio ration of stiffness.

In the secon d case, when flooring consists of composite slabs, the minor
axis beam s will nec essarily resist significan t grav ity load. Thi s results in
increased sectio n sizes for those member s and the wind-moment designs
are therefore much more stable. Ev en so, it will be necessary iii some
cases to furth er increase section sizes, to avoid excessive sway under
service load . On the basis of limited results, a mult iplier of 1.5 to correct
for joint flexib ilit y is reasonable for most frames. ..

In viewIn the sco pe of the studies, and the problems they reveal in
providing a frame of adequ ate resistance, it is concluded that the use of the
wind-moment meth od "in two directi ons" plu s propo sed rules[8] should be
restricted to low rise frames not more than four storeys. The author has
more confidence in the use of the method for frames having secondary
beams (in the minor-axis direction) of a reasonabl e size and stiffness. Its
use with frames whose minor-a xis beam s are little more than tie members
(Fig. 5(a» relie s on a series of rules[8] to ens ure adequate stability.

REFERENCES

[1) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures: Part 1.1 Gen eral rules and
rules for buildings, ENV 1993-1-1 , (l992)CEN, Bru ssels .

[2] British Standard .Institut e BS 5950: Stru ctural Use of Steelwork in

Building Part I: Code of practice for design in simple and continuous
con struction : Hot-rolled Sections, British Standards Institution,
London, 1990. -

[3J Anderson, D., Reading, S.1., and Kavianpour, K., "Wind-moment

design for . unbraced frames", The Steel Con structi on Institute
Publication No. 082 ,1991. .

[4] AISC, "Manual of Steel Construction ", Ameri can In stitute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, 1980.

[5J Joints is Steel Construction: Mom~nt Connections, Steel Con struction

Institute, Ascot , 1995.

[6] Anderson ; D., Reading, S.J. , Najafi, A., and Kavianpour, K., "Wind-
moment design of unbraced frame s", Steel Con struction Tod ay, July
1992 ,
(7) Reading, S.1., "Investigation of the wind connection method" , M.Sc
Th esis, University of War wick, 1989. .
51

[8J Md. Tahir, M., "Structural and Economic Aspects of the use of semi-
rigid Joints in Steel Frames", Ph.D Thesis, University of Warwick,
. March 1997.
[9] Brown, N.D., "Aspects of sway frame design and ductility of
composite end plate connections", Ph.D Thesis, University of
Warwick, 1995.

[10] Kavianpour, K., "Design and analysis of unbraced steel frames", Ph.
D Thesis. University of Warwick. 1990.

(II J Narayan. R. (ed.), Structural Connections Stability and Strength,

Elsevier Applied Science; London., 1989.
 52

a) Frame und er gmvily load h) Frame under wind load

Figure 1 : Frame idealisation for "w ind-moment" method

b) Wind load
a) Gravity load

Figure 2 : Int ernal moments and forces according to "wind-moment" method

H----- - - --,-H -- t:'nbracedp1ane (r~m~

1+1--"---------1+1 --- Unbraccd piOlnc irame

- I
Bracing I
I
I

M-------,---~ - UnhrJcedphn~flllmc:

Figure 3 : Plane braced against c ut-of-pla ne s way

-----
53

.: ; --- _.- - ---

... ' ' :,
,,
, '
External --r-:- ,':
,{ - - ---_
. :
.. ,. ':.-
'
column . I ' ; '
r"'- - -- --- - ..,-". .. '. _ --- ~ - {~"- - ­
, '
,,
.,,, : ,;,'
', '
~ _ .. --.. - - - ~ ~ '..- - ..- .. - -~ , ,,
., ,, ,,
,
,
,
. . .,
,
Beam span / Beam spa n
ions
Figure 4(a): 'fypiC"-llayout for two bay frames (three dilJlens )

G~l!
FrY!
r----r---- I

es
Figure 4{h): 'fypicallayout for two bay fralll (top view)
\
=r
o, ~

\ 1: 1: I I I ::E I
lo&d....ImpC>.iedIOJd

\
~ ~ "'-7 "'-7 "'-7 "'-7

D( ~d loa.d (lnly h ) LoJdin& lor benJUlllbotil fl'lljor uh

6J"
., 6 ", ,
1: 3 ('(' I
~')'
J: . ~"'\,y\
I
?:m
I Dead IOld .. Im!'IO),:'J IO.lJ
, ,H H

a) Precast units
b) Com posite tloor

Figure 5 : Floor grids

\
MA
( ,--- --._>
deformed posicion

.<:.
)M A

(b) lOtdinc fo/ bemiin& about min.or axis

Figure 6 .: Bending moment diagram contribute to ~l

f&JJ De ad lo ad on ly
double curvature In the minor-axis beam
~ Dead load o nly
~

Figure 7 : Arrangements of paltern loading ~

 lJl
Table 2 : Wind-moment design for 2 bay frames considering minimum wind in conjunction with lJl

maximum gravity load (Grid 1, precast floor at 6m span)

Basic Section Designation (1) Connection Requirements
Frame Universal Beam Universal Column Bending moment
Type Floor Roof Externa l Internal Shear force Universal Colum
Floor Roof Floor
Roof
2 Storey 1st 203x133x25 203x133x25 Up to 2nd 203x203,,-71 203x203x71 1st 24 7 1st 8 2
storeY
/ 2 Bay

4 Storey
1st 305xl02x25
2nd.203x133x25 203x133x25
Up to 2nd
Storey
305x305x97 356x368x129 1st 79
2nd 54 11
1st 26
2nd 18 4
2 Bay 3rd.203 x133x25 Jrd 33 3rd II

I
2nd to 4th 203x203x60 .254x254x73
Storey
1st 457x152x52 Up to 3rd 356x368x153 356x406x235 1st 232 Ist 77
2tid 406xI40,,46 Storey 2nd 193 2nd 64
I 3rd 406x140x39 3rd to 6th .30 5x305x97 356x368x153 3rd 172 3rd 57
8 Storey 4th 406x140x39 203x133x25 Storey . 4th 147 16 4th 49 5
2 Bay 5th 356x127x33 6th to 8th 203x203x60 254x254x89 5th 119 5th 40
6th 305xl02x28 Storey 6th 87 6th 29
7th 203x133x25 7th 51 7th 17
Up to 2nd 305x305x97 356x368x129 1st 39 1st 13
4 Storey Ist 203x133x25 Storey 2nd 27 5 2nd 9 2
4 Bay . 2nd 203x133x25 203x133x25 2nd to 4th 203x203x60 254X254x89 3rd16 3rd 5
300 203x133x25 Storey
Up to 2nd 305x305x97 356x368x129 1st 26 1st 9
I 4 Storey 1st 203 x133x25 Storey 2nd 18 4 2nd 6 I
6 Bay 2nd 203x133x25 203x133x25 2nd to 4th 203x203x60 254x254x89 lrd 11 3rd 4
3rd 203x133x25 Storey

I
 Table 3 : Wind-moment design for 2 bays frames considering minimum wind in conjunction with
maximum gravity load (Grid 2, composite floor at 3m span)
Basic Section Designation (1) Connection Requirements
Frame Universal Beam Universal Column Bending moment
Type Floor Roof External Internal Shear force Universal Colum
Floor Roof Floor
Roof
2 Storey 1st 533x210x82 356xl71 x45 Up to 2nd 254x254x73 305x305 x97 1st 6 1 27 1st 174 69
2 Bay Storey
1st 533x210x82 Up to 2nd 305x305x97 356x368 x129 1st 108 1st 183
4 Storey 2nd.533x2 10x82 356x l71x45 Storey 2nd 86 29 2nd 177 69
2 Bay 3rd.533x210 x82 2nd to 4th 254x254x73 254x254x89 3rd 69 3rd 174
Storey
1st 533x2lOx82 Up to 3rd 356x368 x153 356x406x235 1st 239 1st 251
2nd 533x210 x82 Storey 2nd 206 2nd 222
3rd 533x210x 82 3rd to 6th 305x30 5xl18 356x368x153 3rd 191 3rd 196
8StOT(j' 4th 533x210x82 356x171x45 Storey 4th 167 34 4th 188 69
2 Bay 5th 533x210 x82 6th to 8th 254x254x73 254x254x89 5th 142 5111 182
6th 533x2 1Ox82 Storey 6th liS 6th 177
7tlJ 533x210x82 7th 84 7th ' 172
1st 533x210 x82 Up to 2nd 305x305x97 356x368 x129 1st 79 1st 183
4 Storey 2nd 533x210 x82 Storey 2nd 68 ' 27 2nd 177 69
4 Bay 3rd 533x2lO x82 356x171x45 2nd to 4th 254x254x73 254x254x89 3rd59 3rd 174
Storev
Up to 2nd 305x30 5x1l 8 356x368x129 1st 79 1st 183

\ 4 storey 1st 533x210x82 Storey 2nd 68 27 2nd 177 69

6 Bay 2nd 533X210x82 356x171x45 2ndto 4th 254x254 x73 254x254x89 3rd 59 , 3rd 174
3rd 533x210x82 Storey UI
0\
 Ul
" ".-,"" . "
Table 4 : Wind -mome nt design for 2 bay f rames considering maximum wind in conjunction with -...I

minimum gravity load (Grid 1, precast floor at 6m span)

Basic Section Designation (1) Connection Requirements

Frame Universal Beam Universal Column Bending moment
Type Floor Roof Extern al Intemal Shear force Universal Colum
Floor Roof Floor
Roof
2 Storey 1st 356x127x:33 20h133x25 , Up to Znd 254x254x73 305x:305x118 Ist 107 30 1st 36 10
2 Bay Storey
1st 457x19 1x67 Up to 2nd 356x368x153 356x406x235 1st 318 lst 106
4 Storey 2nd.406x140x46 203x133x25 . Storey 2nd 207 38 2nd 69 13
:2 Bay 3rd.356x127x33 2nd to 4th 254x254x73 305x:305x118 3rd 120 3rd 40
Storev
1st 610x229x113 Up to Srd 356x406x287 356x406x551 1st 767 Ist 256
2nd 610x229x10 1 Storey 2nd615 2nd 205
lrd 5l3x210x82 3rdto 6th 356l<:368x153 356x406x287 3rd 528 3rd 176
8 Storey 4th 533x210x82 20Jx133x25 Storey 4th 436 43 4th 145 14
:2 Bay 5th 457x191x67 6Ulto 8th 254x254x89 356x:368x129 5th 340 5th 113
6th 457x152;.,:52 Storey 6th 240 6th 80
7th 406x140x:39 7th 138 ·7111 46
Up to 2nd J05x:305x97 356x:368x153 1st 159 1st 53
4 Storey l st 406x140x39 Storey 2nd 104 19 2nd 35 6
4 Bay 2nd 356x127x33 203x133x25 2nd to 4th 203x203x52 254x254x73 Jrd 60 3rd 20
3rd 203x133x25 Storev
Up to 2nd 254x254x89 305x305x l18 1st 106 1st 35
.4 Storey bot 356xl27x33 Storey 2nd 69 13 2nd 23 4
6 Bay 2nd 305xl02x25 203x I33x-25 2nd to 4th 203x203x46 254x254x73 . 3rd 40 3rd 13
3rd 203x133x25 Storey

I
 Table 5 : Wind-moment design for 2 bay frames considering maximum wind in conjunction with
minimum gravity load (Gri d 2, composite floor at 3m span) .
Basic .Section Designation (1) Connection Requirements
Frame Universal Beam Universal Column Bending moment
Type Floor Roof External Internal Shear force Universal Colurn
Floor Roof Floor
Roof
2 Storey 1st 457x152x60 356x171x45 Up to 2nd 254x254x73 305x305 x118 lst 120 45 1st III 69
2 Bay Storev
1st 457xl91x67 . Up to 2nd 356x368x153 356x3406x235 1st 331 1st 172
4 Storey 2nd.457xI52x60 356)(171x45 Storey 2nd 221 52 2nd 140 69
.2 Bay 3r<1.457x152x60 2nd to 4th . 254x254x89 305x305x118 3rd 134 3rd 115
Storey
1st 61Ox229xl13 Upto3rd 356x406x287 356x406x551 ht 780 1st 316
2nd 61Ox229x10 I Storey 2nd 628 2nd 257
Jrd 533x210x92 Jrd to 6th 356x368x177 356x406x287 3rd 541 Jrd 232
8 Storey 4th 5J3x2lOx82 J56xl71x45 Storey 4th 449 57 4th 206 69
2 Bay 5th 457x191x67 6th to 8th 254x254x89 356x368x129 5th 353 5th 178
6th 457x152x60 Storey 6th 254 6th 150
7th 457x152x60 .. 7th 151 7th 120

\ 4 Storey
4 Bay
1st 457x152x60
2nd 457x152x60
3ed 457x152x60 356x171x45
Up to 2nd
Storey
2nd to 4th
305x305x97

203x203x60
J56x368x153

254x254:x"73
1st 172
2nd 117
3rd76
3J
1st 126
2nd 111
3rd 104
69

Storey
1st 457x152x60 Up to Znd 305x305x118 356x368x1 29 1st 119 1st 104
4 Storey 2nd 457x152x60 Storey 2nd 84 28 2nd 105 69
6 Bay 3rd 457x152x60 356x171x45 2ndto4th 254x254x 73 254x254x89 3rd 59 3rd 111
\.II
. Storev 00

\
 59

Table 6 : ULS collapse load facto r and deflection at SLS for rigid jointed frames.

Frame Width of Frame Load Collapse Deflection

type Bay Identification Case Load Factor Check
(m) (2nd order) 1st (order)
6 LC I 1.83 112245 _
2 storey 2 bay composite Frarnel LC2 2.20 111014
floor LC3 2.64 1/815
6 LCI 1.83 111743
4 storey 2 bay composite Frame 2 LC2 1.83 1/614
floor LC3 2.28 1/492
6 LCI
8 storey 2 bay composite Frame 3 LC2 N/A N/A
floor LC3 ,
6 LC 1 1.83 1/1680
4 storey 4 bay composite Frame 7 LC2 2.16 111173
floor LC3 2.64 11942
6 LCI 1.83 1/2333
4 storey 6 bay composite Frame 8 LC2 2.21 1/2386
floor LC3 2.65 1/1479
6 LC 1
2 storey 2 bay . precast Frame 4 LC2 N/A N/A
floor LC3
6 LCI
4 storey 2 bay precast - FrameS LC2 N/A N/A
floor LC 3
6 LCI
8 storey 2 bay precast Frame 6 LC2 N/A N/A
-floor LC3
6 LC 1
4 storey 4 bay precast Frame 9 LC2 N/A N/A
floor LC3
6 LC 1
4 storey 6 bay' precast Frame 10 LC2 N/A N/A
floor LC3

- .__._---- -- _._-

-.
,-
 60

Tahl e 7 : ULS collapse load factor and deflection at SLS for semi-rigid jo inted frames.

Frame Width of Fram e Load Collapse Deflection

type II Bay Identification Case Load Factor Check
(m) (2nd order) 1st (order)
6 Frame r LC I 1.31 1/840
2 storey 2 oay composite LC2 1.59 1/537
floor LC 3 1.89 1/51 2
, 6 Frame 2 LC I 1.41 1/ 1250
4 storey 2 bay
I composite
floor
I LC2
Lc3
1.46
1.68
1/476
1/400
6 Frame 3 LC I
8 storey 2 bay composite LC2 N/A N/A
floor LC3
6 Frame 7 LCI . 1.31 1/605
4 storey 4 bay composite LC2 1.53. 1/511
floor · LC3 1.89 1/515
6 Frame 8 LC I 1.29 1/636
4 storey 6 bay composite LC2 1.59 1/686
floor LC3 1.90 In27
6 Frame 4 LC I
2 storey 2 bay precast LC2 N/A N/A
floor LC3
6 FrameS LCI
4 storey 2 bay precast LC2 N/A . N/A
floor LC 3
6 Frame 6 LC I
8 storey 2 bay precast LC 2 NJA N/A
.floor LC3
6 Frame 9 LC I 0.70
4 store y 4 bay precast LC2 0.74 NIP,.
floor LC 3 0.93
6 Frame 10 LC ( 0.56
4 storey 6 bay precast LC2 0.68 N/A
floor LC3 0.93